Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T23:02:15.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Job polarisation: Capturing the effects of work organisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

Helena Lopes  and
Teresa Calapez Open the ORCID record for Teresa Calapez [Opens in a new window]
Helena Lopes*
Affiliation:
ISCTE, University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal
Teresa Calapez
Affiliation:
ISCTE, University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal
*
Helena Lopes, ISCTE, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, DINÂMIA’CET-Iscte, Av Forcas Armadas s/n, Lisboa 1649-026, Portugal. Email: helena.lopes@iscte-iul.pt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article critically challenges the findings and assumptions of mainstream job polarisation literature. Based on the European Working Conditions Survey data and on the Job Demand-Control model, which allows for capturing the organisational dimension of jobs, we examine the patterns and evolution of occupations in 22 European countries from 2005 to 2015. Instead of pervasive job polarisation, we observe a near-pervasive trend of upgrading job quality, suggesting that job polarisation may be caused by the undervaluation/devaluation of jobs low in the occupational hierarchy – not by computerisation-driven changes in work tasks. Indeed, only the former can explain the decrease in the number of low-quality jobs while the number of low-paid jobs increases. After documenting the relevance of firm-level organisational choices, we suggest that counteracting job polarisation requires, beyond meso-level collective bargaining, a public intervention that promotes participatory decision-making in firms.

Keywords

J2J81M540Devaluation of workEuropean Working Conditions Surveysjob command-control modeljob polarisation
Type
Original Articles
Information
The Economic and Labour Relations Review , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 594 - 613
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Autor, D (2013) The ‘Task Approach’ to labor markets: an overview. IZA Discussion Paper no 7178, January. Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, D (2015) Why are there still so many jobs? Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(3): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, D, Handel, M (2013) Putting tasks to the test: human capital, job tasks and wages. Journal of Labour Economics 31(2): S59–S96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, D, Levy, F, Murname, R (2003) The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(4): 1279–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, GM (2016) Where have the middle-wage workers gone? A study of polarization using panel data. Journal of Labor Economics 34(1): 63–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Spiegelaere, S, Van Geyes, G, De Witte, H, et al. (2015) Job design, work engagement and innovative behavior: a multilevel study on Karasek’s learning hypothesis. Management Revue 26(2): 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Witte, H, Verhofstadt, E, Omey, E (2007) Testing Karasek’s learning and strain hypotheses on young workers in their first job. Work and Stress 21(2): 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) (2006) Revised fourth edition, 1991 (ICPSR 6100). Available at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/6100 (accessed 1 December 2020).Google Scholar
Eurofound (2014) Drivers of Recent Job Polarization and Upgrading in Europe, European Jobs Monitor 2014. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Eurofound (2015) European Working Conditions Surveys. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/european-working-conditions-surveys (accessed 1 April 2019).Google Scholar
Eurofound (2018) European Working Conditions Survey Integrated Data File, 1991-2015 [data collection] 7th Edition. UK Data Service SN: 7363. Available at: http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7363-7 Google Scholar
Fernández-Macias, E (2012) Job polarization in Europe? Changes in the employment structure and job quality. Work and Occupations 39(2): 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Macias, E, Hurley, J (2017) Routine-biased technical change and job polarization in Europe. Socio-Economic Review 15(3): 563–585.Google Scholar
Goos, M, Manning, A, Salomons, A (2009) Job polarization in Europe. American Economic Review 99(2): 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goos, M, Manning, A, Salomons, A (2010) Explaining job polarization in Europe: the roles of technology, globalization and institutions. CEP Discussion Paper no 1026, November. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Goos, M, Manning, A, Salomons, A (2014) Explaining job polarization: routine-biased technological change and offshoring. American Economic Review 104(8): 2509–2526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, D, Rafferty, A (2018) The convergence and divergence of job discretion between occupations and institutional regimes in Europe from 1995 to 2010. Journal of Management Studies 55(4): 619–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, T, Soskice, D (2015) Democratic limits to redistribution: inclusionary versus exclusionary coalitions in the knowledge economy. World Politics 67(2): 185–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janíčko, M, Krčková, A (2019) Work autonomy at different occupational skill levels. Eastern European Economics 57(3): 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karasek, R (1979) Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(2): 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karasek, R, Theorell, T (1990) Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Karasek, R, Brisson, C, Kawakami, N, et al. (1998) The job content questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health 3(4): 322–355.Google ScholarPubMed
Kurer, T, Palier, B (2019) Shrinking and shouting: the political revolt of the declining middle in times of employment polarization. Research & Politics 6(1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazauskaite-Zabielske, J, Urbanaviciute, I, Balsiene, RB (2018) From psychosocial working environment to good performance: the role of work engagement. Baltic Journal of Management 13(2): 236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linting, M, van der Kooij, A (2012) Nonlinear principal components analysis with CATPCA: a tutorial. Journal of Personality Assessment 94(1): 12–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linting, M, Meulman, JJ, Groenen, PJF, et al. (2007) Nonlinear principal components analysis: introduction and application. Psychological Methods 12(3): 336–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopes, H, Calapez, MT, Lopes, D (2017) The determinants of work autonomy and employee involvement – a multi-level analysis. Economic and Industrial Democracy 38(3): 448–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, H, Lagoa, S, Calapez, T (2014) Work autonomy, work pressure and job satisfaction. Economic and Labour Relations Review 25(2): 306–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinaitis, Z, Christenko, A, Antanavicius, J (2020) Upskilling, deskilling or polarisation? Evidence on changes in skills in Europe. Work, Employment and Society. Epub ahead of print 1 September. DOI: 10.1177/0950017020937934. Google Scholar
Martins, NO (2019) Human development: which way now? New Political Economy. Epub ahead of print 28 March. DOI: 10.1080/13563467.2019.1598961. Google Scholar
Meulman, J, Van Der Kooij, A, Heiser, W (2004) Principal components analysis with nonlinear optimal scaling transformations. In: Kaplan, D (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 49–70.Google Scholar
O*NET Resource Centre (2020). Available at: https://www.onetcenter.org/database.html#individual-files (accessed 1 December 2020).Google Scholar
Parker, S (2017) Work design characteristics: how work characteristics promote learning and development. In: Ellingston, J, Noe, R (eds) Autonomous Learning in the Workplace. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spenner, K (1980) Occupational characteristics and classification systems. Sociological Methods and Research 9(2): 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taris, T, Kompier, M (2005) Job demands, job control, strain and learning behavior: review and research agenda. In: Antoniou, A, Cooper, C (eds) Research Companion to Organizational Health Psychology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 132–150.Google Scholar
Theorell, T, Hammarström, A, Aronsson, G, et al. (2015) A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health 15: 738–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waddington, J, Conchon, A (2016) Board-Level Employee Representation in Europe. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wang, J, Caminada, K, Goudswaard, K, et al. (2018) Income polarization in European countries 2004-2012. Cambridge Journal of Economics 42(3): 797–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lopes and Calapez supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 212.4 KB